INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:Rapamycin- and taxol-eluting stents have been shown to reduce restenosis, but there are no large-scale studies of their usefulness in lesions with a high risk of restenosis, or of the relative merits of the two devices. This prospective study compared their safety and efficacy in lesions with a high risk of restenosis. PATIENTS AND METHOD: We included consecutive patients with lesions to treat that met at least one of the following criteria: a) in-stent restenosis; b) diffuse (>20 mm) restenosis; c) small vessel (< or =2.5 mm) restenosis; or d) total occlusion. Patients received different devices along three consecutive study periods: bare metal (conventional) stents, sirolimus-eluting (rapamycin) stents and paclitaxel-eluting (taxol) stents. RESULTS:One hundred patients in each group were included, for a total of 300 patients. In the sirolimus group, after 8.5+/-2 months of follow-up, there were 2 late thromboses (2%) and only 1 patient (1%) required target lesion revascularization. In the paclitaxel group 2 patients (2%) had in-hospital stent thrombosis (1 acute, 1 subacute), and after 9+/-2.5 months of follow-up only 1 patient (1%) needed target lesion revascularization. In the conventional group, after 8+/-2 months of follow-up, there was 1 subacute thrombosis (1%) and 15 patients (15%) had clinical restenosis requiring target lesion revascularization. Event-free survival curves were significantly better with drug-eluting stents (P<.01 vs conventional stents). CONCLUSION:Rapamycin- and taxol-eluting stents were safe for lesions with a high risk of restenosis. These stents were associated with a lower rate of target lesion revascularization during follow-up compared to bare metal stents.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:Rapamycin- and taxol-eluting stents have been shown to reduce restenosis, but there are no large-scale studies of their usefulness in lesions with a high risk of restenosis, or of the relative merits of the two devices. This prospective study compared their safety and efficacy in lesions with a high risk of restenosis. PATIENTS AND METHOD: We included consecutive patients with lesions to treat that met at least one of the following criteria: a) in-stent restenosis; b) diffuse (>20 mm) restenosis; c) small vessel (< or =2.5 mm) restenosis; or d) total occlusion. Patients received different devices along three consecutive study periods: bare metal (conventional) stents, sirolimus-eluting (rapamycin) stents and paclitaxel-eluting (taxol) stents. RESULTS: One hundred patients in each group were included, for a total of 300 patients. In the sirolimus group, after 8.5+/-2 months of follow-up, there were 2 late thromboses (2%) and only 1 patient (1%) required target lesion revascularization. In the paclitaxel group 2 patients (2%) had in-hospital stent thrombosis (1 acute, 1 subacute), and after 9+/-2.5 months of follow-up only 1 patient (1%) needed target lesion revascularization. In the conventional group, after 8+/-2 months of follow-up, there was 1 subacute thrombosis (1%) and 15 patients (15%) had clinical restenosis requiring target lesion revascularization. Event-free survival curves were significantly better with drug-eluting stents (P<.01 vs conventional stents). CONCLUSION:Rapamycin- and taxol-eluting stents were safe for lesions with a high risk of restenosis. These stents were associated with a lower rate of target lesion revascularization during follow-up compared to bare metal stents.